we don't have guns in my household now, but we did when i was younger, because they were hunters. so i got use to them.

I think for the most part, poisons in your household are intended for killing bugs or rodents, or maybe cleaning your bathroom...a gun in your household could be for hunting...but a gun purchased for "protection," means it's for shooting someone.

Profundity in it's finest hour.

Only if they are, possibly, going to shoot you first.
They can also be for multiple reasons, trap shooting, target practice, enjoyment as an artistic/technical item, as well as protection against animals and humans.

AKA killing

Ya know, Spex, I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you telling why I do things. You have no fucking idea why I do anything, so stop it, right fucking now.

No, with people, for protection most often means for dissuasion without firing a shot.
Animals however, although usually the noise of the first shot will scare them off, if it doesn't they are deadly serious and have to be shot and often killed.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic--are you agreeing with me, or trying to insult me again? I'd think you, out of everybody here, would agree with my little reflection the most.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Anti-gun Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) continues his assault on American gun owners.

Dingell has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker a compromise with Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on H.R. 297, a gun control bill being pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.

The bill provides about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm... regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

As GOA has pointed out in previous alerts, this could lead to millions more Americans being included in the FBI's database of prohibited persons.

Dingell, being a former NRA board member, is in a unique position in the Congress on Second Amendment issues. Despite the fact that he betrayed gun owners by supporting the Clinton semi-auto ban, he is still viewed on the Hill as one of the few pro-gun Democrats.

So his support gives the bill the appearance of having the support of gun owners, when actually it is the most massive expansion of gun control in over a decade.

McCarthy, of course, is the most notorious anti-gunner in the Congress. Her sitting down with Dingell to decide the fate of our gun rights is like two foxes deciding how to best guard the henhouse.

To make matters worse, Dingell is in negotiations with the NRA to come up with a 'compromise' as quickly as possible.

The NRA itself told Newsweek in an exclusive interview on April 24 that the group "backs [the] proposed new legislation" in the House.


Newsweek reported, "The NRA's position puts the group at odds with the Gun Owners of America, which has already launched a public campaign to block the legislation that the NRA supports, warning that the proposal could 'block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.'"

Politicians always seek to pass laws in the aftermath of a tragedy, as if one more law will stop evil people from doing evil deeds.
Instead of passing more and more laws that ultimately will snuff out our liberty, we should consider repealing gun control laws that prevent citizens from defending themselves when a madman strikes.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative at 202-225-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

Ya know, Bruce, I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you not understanding the English language. You have no fucking idea how to understand plain English, so get a clue, right fucking now.:right:

Should I interpret your saying I have poisons in my house that can be used to kill people to be TELLING me that I'm going to poison someone?

Oh, and way to avoid answering the fucking question.

No you dumb motherfucker, I don't presume to know why you do anything, and you have no clairvoyance either.

I pointed out, you having the means(poision) to kill somebody in your house doesn't mean you intend on doing that. Even though you're making that very same presumption of others, which is asinine. It's like me saying you bought a dog to rip peoples throats out.

When you do that shit, it's more than being presumptuous, it's flat out lies.

Bruce, why waste your time on a useless idiot who claims your reasons for owning something are ridiculous? Your reasons for owning a gun are irrelevant as long as you don't use them to violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. You can buy a gun to prop up a table leg and it's none of his fucking business.

Neither he, nor the combined population of the planet earth minus you has any say in whether or not you may or may not own a gun. It's your RIGHT to own any number of any type of gun you want without limits and the same is true of the amount and type of ammunition you want. Not one person, or a group of people regardless of their number (even if they call themselves "government") has any legitimate authority over whether or not you own a million guns with a billion rounds of armor piercing ammunition without any serial numbers or registration of those guns.

100% of gun control laws are a violation of the Constitution and of our INDIVIDUAL natural, undeniable, self-evident, immutable, and inalienable rights.

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, a liar, or an asshole... or all of the above.

The same person that says...
LOL!!!! So awesome! :p

Which is only one of the reasons I gave for ownership. You choose to obsess over it for your own reasons.
If that is all you see, you obviously don't feel that people have a right to defend themselves in any circumstance, again, don't buy one.

I think some of the above posts are unacceptable.

I thought this forum was all about mutual respect?

Why can't people just back off if they feel the need to be so virulently abusive?

If you don't like it don't read it. You don't determine acceptability.